Buddhism of the Suttas

[Maddie]

When I begin my study of Buddhism I think like probably most other people I learned from teachers and videos and contemporary books and they definitely all seem to have their uses and place.

  However as time has gone by I've drifted away from that and begin to read the Suttas from the Pali Cannon myself. At first I was still reading them through the lens of the contemporary stuff that I was taught, but after some time I came to realize that the Buddhism taught in the suttas is not necessarily exactly the same as what's taught today in a contemporary context.

  Probably the most vivid example that jumps out at me is most people I run into thinking Buddhism equals meditation and that meditation equals having a blank mind. We definitely do not find this being the emphasis of the suttas. 

 Another common misconception I've noticed is that people think the Buddha taught that there is no self. Actually if you read the suttas he never said this, he just simply taught things that were not the self that were mistaken to be the self. He also didn't say there was a self but he didn't say there wasn't either.

 That's just a couple of examples but has anyone else found this in their own personal study of the suttas?

[C T]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

 Another common misconception I've noticed is that people think the Buddha taught that there is no self. Actually if you read the suttas he never said this, he just simply taught things that were not the self that were mistaken to be the self. He also didn't say there was a self but he didn't say there wasn't either.

 

 

This excerpt from Thanissaro Bhikkhu is probably closer to what's being alluded to with regards to Gautama's teaching on Anatta (non-self) -- 

 

 

Quote

 

The path begins with discernment — the factors of right view and right resolve — and discernment begins with this basic question about which actions are really skillful: "What, when I do it, will lead to long-term welfare and happiness?" 

 

The Buddha's teaching on not-self — and his teaching on self — are, in part, answers to this question. To fit into this question, perceptions of self and perceptions of not-self are best viewed as kamma or actions: actions of identification and dis-identification. In the terms of the texts, the perception of self is called an action of "I-making" and "my-making (ahaṅkāra mamaṅkāra)." The perception of not-self is part of an activity called the "not-self contemplation (anattānupassana)". 

 

Thus the question becomes: When is the perception of self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness, when is the perception of not-self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness?

This is the reverse of the way that the relationship between questions of kamma and not-self are usually understood.

 

If you've ever taken an introductory course on Buddhism, you've probably heard this question: "If there is no self, who does the kamma, who receives the results of kamma?" This understanding turns the teaching on not-self into a teaching on no self, and then takes no self as the framework and the teaching on kamma as something that doesn't fit in the framework. But in the way the Buddha taught these topics, the teaching on kamma is the framework and the teaching of not-self fits into that framework as a type of action. In other words, assuming that there really are skillful and unskillful actions, what kind of action is the perception of self? What kind of action is the perception of not-self?

 

So, to repeat, the issue is not, "What is my true self?" but "What kind of perception of self is skillful and when is it skillful, what kind of perception of not-self is skillful and when is it skillful?"

 

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by C T

[Maddie]

18 minutes ago, C T said:

 

This excerpt from Thanissaro Bhikkhu is probably closer to what's being alluded to with regards to Gautama's teaching on Anatta (non-self) -- 

 

 

 

 

This is so satisfying as one time I was on a retreat and I started to think about the connection with karma and self and when I tried to talk to the monks about this they did not seem to understand what I was saying. 

 

I think most people see karma as a big reward and punishment system in the sky or something, when in actuality it is made by the Sankhara khanda and thus not only is conditioned by the mind, but in turn conditions the mind. We don't just make it with our decisions but it informs our decisions and preferences as well. A classic example is "why do girls only like bad boys?", would be better explained that "girls with bad karma like bad boys". 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Maddie

[Mark Foote]

On 3/3/2023 at 4:41 AM, Maddie said:

When I begin my study of Buddhism I think like probably most other people I learned from teachers and videos and contemporary books and they definitely all seem to have their uses and place.

 

However as time has gone by I've drifted away from that and begin to read the Suttas from the Pali Cannon myself. At first I was still reading them through the lens of the contemporary stuff that I was taught, but after some time I came to realize that the Buddhism taught in the suttas is not necessarily exactly the same as what's taught today in a contemporary context.

 

... has anyone else found this in their own personal study of the suttas?

 

 

Yes!  I found that about every twelfth sermon in the Pali Text Society translations, there was something unique, that was actually not exactly like anything in the general literature.  Of course, the Pali Text Society abridged a lot of the sermons owing to the repetition, so it may have been more like every 24th sermon in the original.

Also, there was one particular thread in the lectures that spoke to me:

 

In one of his declensions of the cause and effect of suffering, Gautama spoke of how consciousness comes to be “stationed” as a result of “that which we will”, and how that “station of consciousness” gives rise to “this mass of ill”:

 

That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–this becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness. Consciousness being stationed and growing, rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and here from birth, decay, and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair come to pass. Such is the uprising of this mass of ill.

 

Even if we do not will, or intend to do, and yet are occupied with something, this too becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness… whence birth… takes place.

 

But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness. Consciousness not being stationed and growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and herefrom birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill.

 

(SN II 65, Pali Text Society SN Vol II pg 45)

 

It’s my belief that the mind that moves is the opposite of “a station of consciousness”.

 

“Birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair”—in some of his lectures, Gautama summarized “this entire mass of ill” by saying “in short, the five groups of grasping”.  Grasping after a sense of self in connection with phenomena of form, feeling, mind, habitual tendency, or mental state is identically suffering, according to Gautama.

(Response to "Not the Wind, Not the Flag")

 

 

As to the mind that moves:

 

Do not concern yourself with anything;
Fix the mind nowhere.
Fixing the mind nowhere,
Limitless brightness shows itself.

 

(from “Song of the Mind” 6th century C.E., by Niutou Farong, “Xin ming”, tr. Master Sheng Yen)

 

What does it mean, to “fix the mind nowhere”?

 

Koun Franz, Zen teacher and editor for “Lions Roar”, spoke about an instruction frequently given to beginners in Zen meditation:  “place the mind here”.  That instruction, he said, can have two meanings—either to set up a focus of attention on a particular location in space, or alternatively, to allow the base of consciousness to shift to a particular location in space.  According to Franz, “mind” as the base of consciousness can indeed shift to a particular location in space, but the shift cannot be made to happen; it’s an exercise in letting go, he said.

 

I’d say that the line “fix the mind nowhere” is advice to allow the movement of mind that koun Franz described.

 

I’ve written about how the mind can move just before falling asleep, and how the best time to observe the phenomena is in the middle of the night.  Several people have reported to me that as they returned to sleep, they experienced their self-awareness at a certain place in their body, and as the place shifted from one location to another, they fell asleep. One person reported a similar experience of dropping into the location of self-awareness in the daytime, and he said it gave him a feeling of peace.

 

Gautama the Buddha referred to “one-pointedness of mind” in his sermons, and I would contend that what he meant was precisely the experience of self-awareness at a particular location in space, a location that may shift but that remains singular.

 

“One-pointedness of mind” was apparently a commonly understood phrase in Gautama’s day. Such phrases can be difficult to translate, according to I. B. Horner, the Pali Text Society translator of the Middle-Length Sayings:

 

This is an example of the allusiveness of the Pali texts.  It does not detract from their precision, but only shows it is we who must find the key to what at one time was probably obvious and well understood.

 

(“Translator’s Introduction”, Pali Text Society MN III p xxi)

 

(Not the Wind, Not the Flag)

 

 

I have notes that I took in 1995 on the sermons in the first four volumes of the Nikayas, here.  I have a website where I have assembled the pieces of my own writing that are the most helpful to me, and a PDF of the same that can be downloaded.  My blog is there too, Zazen Notes.

Something that might interest you that you won't find in the Mahayana/Vajrayana teachings is a little history recounted in "Indian Buddhism", by A. K. Warder.  Professor Warder points to one particularly contentious issue that he says resulted in the great schism in Buddhism, and that was the debate over whether or not an arahant could be seduced in his sleep.  Yes, we have Theravadin and Mahayana/Vajrayana because of a disagreement over whether an enlightened person could have a wet dream!

I, too, find no other voice like that of the Gautamid.  Even the sermons attributed to his foremost disciples are not the same.  I would recommend the Pali Text Society translations.
 

 

[Maddie]

I heard about the wet dream debate and is silly as it sounds on the surface I think it raises a good question. I believe it was the Mahayana who said that an arahat could not have a wet dream. 

[EFreethought]

11 minutes ago, Maddie said:

I heard about the wet dream debate and is silly as it sounds on the surface I think it raises a good question. I believe it was the Mahayana who said that an arahat could not have a wet dream. 

 

I am claiming "Wet Dream Debate" as my band name.

[Mark Foote]

53 minutes ago, Maddie said:

I heard about the wet dream debate and is silly as it sounds on the surface I think it raises a good question. I believe it was the Mahayana who said that an arahat could not have a wet dream. 
 

 

Had to make me open the book, didn't you!

"... there is in fact an account of the First Schism which gives just such a date, namely the tradition of the Sammitya school recorded by Bhavya (Bhavaviveka) and the Tibetan historians (probably following him).   This account places the event in B.C. 349.... On this occasion a monk, about whose name there are disagreements..., put forward five grounds, of which four concern the question of the nature of an arhant... and none have any direct bearing on the discipline.  An assembly took place... and the majority, it would appear, voted in favour of these grounds.  This majority constituted itself into the Mahasamgha.... The minority which rejected the grounds, and which apparently included a number of the most senior monks, refused to submit to this decision and constituted themselves into the School of the Elders, the Sthaviravada.

 

... We seem led to the conclusion that the two parties were less far apart than at first sight they appear to be, except on the first ground [that an arhant can be seduced by another person].  The Sthaviravada were categorical that an arhant was by nature beyond the reach of any possible seduction; the Mahasamgha allowed an arhant to be seduced in a dream.  Between these opinions no compromise could be found....

 

No compromise having been reached, the two parties separated and became two schools of Buddhism.  Afterwards they gradually came to disagree on several more grounds, partly through working out the implications of their positions.  In particular the nature of the Buddha was reconsidered.  In the Tripitaka he is not apparently distinguished from any other arhant, except that he had the exceptional genius necessary to discover the truths unaided whilst the others were helped by his guidance.  The Sthaviravada remained closer to this conception, though gradually they attributed a higher status to the Buddha, eventually complete 'omniscience', especially in the more popular propaganda.  The Mahasamgha, on the other hand, having relaxed or at least not made more stringent the conditions for an arhant, found it desirable to make a clear distinction in the case of the Buddha; he was a being of quite a different nature, far above other human beings or perhaps not really a human being at all.  They thus began that transformation of the Buddha, and his doctrine, which led step by step to the Mahayana...."

 

("Indian Buddhism", A. K. Warder, Motilal Banarsidass 2nd ed p 217-218)

 

So, no, at least as far as Warder could discover--the Mahayanists believed an arahant could have a wet dream.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

51 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I heard about the wet dream debate and is silly as it sounds on the surface I think it raises a good question. I believe it was the Mahayana who said that an arahat could not have a wet dream. 

 

I think the fascinating thing about the Mahayana teaching is the notion that one should not cling to the rules of the Order in order to achieve a personal enlightenment.  Rather, one should pledge to enable all the other sentient beings to achieve enlightenment before oneself, which implies accepting actions that result in rebirth for the sake of all sentient beings.

I find myself in accord with that, at least as far as breaking some of the rules some of the time for the sake of others, but at the same time I do think of Gautama as "not apparently distinguished from any other arhant, except that he had the exceptional genius necessary to discover the truths unaided".  

I'm a big little vehicle kind of person--a push-cart kind of guy.  Make me one with everything.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Maddie]

14 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

I'm a big little vehicle kind of person--a push-cart kind of guy.  Make me one with everything.

 

The dalai lama walks into a pizza restaurant and says make me one with everything.

 

Then I guess I got it backwards but my understanding is that someone who's fully enlightened could not possibly have a wet dream because there would be nothing left in the mind with which to have that reaction.

[stirling]

18 hours ago, Maddie said:

I heard about the wet dream debate and is silly as it sounds on the surface I think it raises a good question. I believe it was the Mahayana who said that an arahat could not have a wet dream. 

 

This is just silliness. An arahant may realize attachment and aversion, but that doesn't mean that feelings and thought never come up, or that they suddenly live some supernaturally pure life. The Buddha (as an arahant) got angry, experienced pain, etc. It is possible that an arahant couldn't be seduced, however. When you are able to watch phenomena arise and pass moment to moment, you can watch desire arise like any other thing in mind/body. That doesn't mean that the arahant wouldn't end up deciding to go with those thoughts/feelings as they arise, however. 

 

Quote

In the Tripitaka he is not apparently distinguished from any other arhant, except that he had the exceptional genius necessary to discover the truths unaided whilst the others were helped by his guidance.

 

Unaided? He had the same lessons in impermanence that we all do. Any Vajrayana teacher worth their salt would tell you that life experiences are amongst the most powerful "teachers" of all! There are also the Pratyekabodhi - those who become enlightened with no exposure to dharma of any flavor other that the world itself, which is the arising of the dharmakaya, or the "teaching body" of all buddhas itself.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddhayāna

 

Pratyekabodhis are real. I have met one.

 

-

 

Quote

In the Pali Canon of Theravada Buddhism, the Dhammakāya (dharmakāya) is explained as a figurative term, meaning the "body" or the sum of the Buddha's teachings. - Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakāya

[Mark Foote]

Quote

Many years after my first experience of "will-less" action (Kobun Chino Otogawa:  "You know, sometimes zazen gets up and walks around"), I came to the conclusion that ishinashini is a lot like hypnotic suggestion--my true beliefs will result in action, regardless of the lack of any exercise of will to act.  That's the flaw in Sasaki's use of "ishinashini" as an excuse for his actions--he believed that his sexual feelings were a true expression of his nature that shouldn't be repressed, and even without the exercise of will his beliefs resulted in actions.  IMHO.

Occasionally, my experience of ishinashini is not connected to my beliefs, and I discover after the fact that my actions somehow accorded with events yet to be--I attribute that now to an ability to take in things which are beyond the conscious range of the senses, but I don't claim to really understand it.  As Dogen said:
 

Although actualized immediately, the inconceivable may not be apparent.

 

(“Genjo Koan”, Dogen; tr. Robert Aitken and Kazuaki Tanahashi)
 

 

There's a famous story in the Zen literature:
 

Layman Pang was with his whole family sitting around the fire. Layman Pang suddenly said, ‘Difficult, difficult–ten bushels of oil hemp spread out on a tree.’ Mrs. Pang said, ‘Easy, easy–on the tips of the hundred grasses, the meaning of Zen.’ Their daughter Lingzhao said, ‘Not difficult, not easy–eating when hungry, sleeping when tired’.
 

(“Zen Letters: Teachings of Yuanwu”, trans. Cleary & Cleary, pg 41)

 

 

In my estimation, the hemp oil on a tree is a description of "laying hold of one-pointedness of mind", or in my terminology, mustering the presence of mind to stay awake as the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention, at a location or a series of locations in the body.

The tips of the hundred grasses is realizing the contact of sense in the placement of attention by the movement of breath.

Eating when hungry, sleeping when tired is acknowledging the role of the most deeply held beliefs in the generation of action (while keeping a weather eye toward the immediate actualization of the inconceivable).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

Unaided? He had the same lessons in impermanence that we all do. Any Vajrayana teacher worth their salt would tell you that life experiences are amongst the most powerful "teachers" of all! There are also the Pratyekabodhi - those who become enlightened with no exposure to dharma of any flavor other that the world itself, which is the arising of the dharmakaya, or the "teaching body" of all buddhas itself.

 

Gautama studied under two teachers, according to the Ariyapariyesanā Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/mn26/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false), Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta.  The story was more or less the same with both teachers, Gautama mastered what they taught but was left unsatisfied:

Thus Āḷāra Kālāma, my teacher, placed me, his pupil, on an equal footing with himself and awarded me the highest honour. But it occurred to me: ‘This Dhamma does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna, but only to reappearance in the base of nothingness.' Not being satisfied with that Dhamma, disappointed with it, I left.

 

... Thus Uddaka Rāmaputta, my companion in the holy life, placed me in the position of a teacher and accorded me the highest honour. But it occurred to me: ‘This Dhamma does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna, but only to reappearance in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.’ Not being satisfied with that Dhamma, disappointed with it, I left.

“Still in search, bhikkhus, of what is wholesome, seeking the supreme state of sublime peace, I wandered by stages through the Magadhan country until eventually I arrived at Uruvelā, at Senānigama. There I saw an agreeable piece of ground, a delightful grove with a clear-flowing river with pleasant, smooth banks and nearby a village for alms resort. I considered: ‘This is an agreeable piece of ground, this is a delightful grove with a clear-flowing river with pleasant, smooth banks and nearby a village for alms resort. This will serve for the striving of a clansman intent on striving.’ And I sat down there thinking: ‘This will serve for striving.’

(Ariyapariyesanā Sutta)

The result of Gautama's perserverance being his attainment of the cessation of ("determinate thought" in) feeling and perceiving, and his insight into the four truths.

He had teachers, they left him unsatisfied, he pushed on:
 

[The bad person] reflects thus: ‘I am an acquirer of the attainment of the first meditation.’ [Such a person] then exalts [him or her self] for that attainment of the first meditation and disparages others… But a good (person] reflects thus: ‘Lack of desire even for the attainment of the first meditation has been spoken of by [Gautama]; for whatever (one) imagines it to be, it is otherwise” [Similarly for the second, third, and fourth initial meditative states, and for the attainments of the first four further meditative states].
 

And again … a good [person], by passing quite beyond the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, enters on and abides in the stopping of perception and feeling; and when [such a person] has seen by means of wisdom [their] cankers are caused to be destroyed. And… this [person] does not imagine [his or her self] to be aught or anywhere or in anything.

 

(MN III 42-45, Pali Text Society Vol III pg 92-94)

[Cobie]

 

3 hours ago, stirling said:

… An arahant may realize attachment and aversion, but that doesn't mean that feelings and thought never come up, …. The Buddha (as an arahant) got angry, experienced pain, etc. …

 

Exactly 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Cobie

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

Gautama studied under two teachers, according to the Ariyapariyesanā Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/mn26/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false), Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta.  The story was more or less the same with both teachers, Gautama mastered what they taught but was left unsatisfied.

 

This happens a lot, which is why many of us (especially Westerners) ending up seeking teachings in multiple schools. At its base is a confusion that somehow it is the teacher, texts, or practices that is what illuminates. Ultimately it is NONE of those things. 

 

Quote

...no path; no knowledge and no attainment... - Buddha, Heart Sutra

 

[doc benway]

14 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

This happens a lot, which is why many of us (especially Westerners) ending up seeking teachings in multiple schools. At its base is a confusion that somehow it is the teacher, texts, or practices that is what illuminates. Ultimately it is NONE of those things. 

 

 

 

A corollary is that for any of us one specific teacher, text, practice, even a word or a smack on the shoulder, can be what it takes to make us receptive.... or whatever it is that happens to open us up. It's a mystery to me how it happens, a blessing.